[GeoStL] Re: Virtual and Locationless Caches
- From: "Ben Outlaw" <motexoutlaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:19:26 -0800
At the end of December I was frustrated by this same Virtual vs traditional
issue after being initially being turned down on several.
Here is the e-mail about the unapproval and my replies. I know the reply was a
long "book" but I was stirred up. His reply, Mr. Outlaw I have approved it, you
wore me down, are you sure you are not a retired lawyer (not a retired chemist).
If any of you at SLAGA care to read thru this to get the gist of my points,
thanks. Otherwise click next to go to your next email.
The process
GC ADMIN:
Hi,
I'm really not picking on you, but we are trying to weed out the virtual
caches that do not meet the spirit of these guidelines
If your spot is indeed a unique and compelling location of the sort that
you'd find in a coffee table book just reply to that effect in an e-mail and
we'll post it. If it really isn't all that special please archive it and
look for another. Keep in mind that we generally won't post a cache within
.1 miles or so of another, so if the spot you've selected might be more
suited to a traditional cache I'd encourage you to place on of those
instead.
Another way to look at it is this: If you were contacted by a local news
reporter who wanted to do a story about geocaching and asked to accompany
you on a Geocache hunt or two where would you take him to demonstrate the
sport? I can tell you that if I took a reporter to a bunch of historic
monuments he's say "I pass these on the road all the time, big deal". If I
took him to traditional cache where families trade trinkets I wouldn't be
afraid of how his news story represented our sport.
My Reply :
I assume and hope this is a form e-mail that is sent to all new sponsors of
a cache before it is approved.
I have the following comments:
You wrote: Keep in mind that we generally won't post a cache within 0.1 miles
or so of another, so if the spot you've selected might be more suited to a
traditional cache I'd encourage you to place on of those instead.
My response: The nearest cache is "Kanis Traik" GC7C7A, which is 4.2 miles
NE. I have modified the cache report to encourage anyone that wants to
sponsor a traditional cache here or close by to let me know and I would gladly
archive this. I mentioned that it could also be the first stage of
multicache that may want to post. Another issue is the cachers that post
traditional caches that
are of long distance from their home which makes it difficult to the
necessary maintenance. An example of that is is your adopting a cache in a
local State park just 20
miles from my home in Rosenberg, but over 250 miles from your home in the
Dallas Fort Worth area.
When my daughter (she got me started in the sport) and I found and logged this
cache back in September
2002, she recommended that I adopt it (as the geocaching.com page at that
time said it was up for adoption), but it could come with strings attached.
For example I was aware that the State Park Rangers at this park here had
concerns (lack of
knowledge of the sport) with geocaching. Like others who have asked the
rangers at this park before placing a new cache, that an environmental
impact report be presented to the Park Board would be required before any
cache approval. Dealing with these issues could jeopardize the other four
caches in the park already. At the same time this issue will eventually
have to be dealt with this parks rangers as is the problem in placing caches
in many parks around the country.
GC ADMIN wrote: Another way to look at it is this: If you were contacted by a
local news reporter who wanted to do a story about geocaching and asked to
accompany you on a geocache hunt or two where would you take him to
demonstrate the sport? I can tell you that if I took a reporter to a bunch
of historic monuments he's say "I pass these on the road all the time, big
deal". If I took him to traditional cache where families trade trinkets I
wouldn't be afraid of how his news story represented our sport.
My response: While looking for another interesting and historical virtual in
this area (Flying Fortress: GC29F7) I came upon this Civil War site which I
hope can be approved for a new virtual. I was with my brother-in-law who
has lived near both of these sites for all his life. When I asked him to go
with me to Flying Fortress he mentioned that had drove by and had seen the
sign that directs people to the site hundreds of times and did not know what
was there and what happened there. He thanked me for introducing him to the
idea of geocaching and going to a historical site near his home area that he
had
not seen. He was glad that that he went. He also was not aware of what was the
significance of the Civil War site that I am using for Little Rocks Last Stand
. He
has seen the sign pointing to it many times as he drove by. I am sure they is
many local reporters that has no idea what the significance of these sites are
either. Which I think has as much value as trinkets that he may find in a
tradition cache. I have heard some cachers that I met at our local cachers
association complain about the junk he finds in caches not being worth his
find.
It appears that many cachers are more interested in the material value of their
find
than the actual find using their GPSr. As I was reminded by Geocaching Admin
-that is the real purpose of the sport, learning to use and employ a GRSr. I
very
seldom make trinket trades; I am more interested in the actual find and may
retrieve or drop off a Travel Bug.
>From Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines: There should be one or more
questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location,
etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to
answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered
through library or web research.
My response: I am aware of two virtuals in my area (Travelers Rest, Brit
Bailey's ID# 35911 GC8C47) and (The Storm ID# 17094 GC42C6) where the
answers for verification are readily available without going to the site.
When Travelers Rest, Brit Bailey's was posted I went to my favorite Internet
search engine and but in "Brit Bailey" and came up with all necessary
answers. If you check I have yet to claim this find. I will wait until I
have used my GPSr to get me there, enjoy the outing, e-mail the answers to
the questions and maybe post a photo of me with my GPSr by the monument with
my log. I have been at "The Storm" twice in the last three months, but did
not have my GPSr with me. I know the verification answers but I will wait
until I correctly observe this then claim the log. I am interested in
increasing the number of cache finds but I will not log a virtual cache
without actually going to it with a GPSr and usually a photo to attach. I would
say that the history at
these sites is much more valuable on my coffee table than most trinkets from
many traditional caches.
I have also driven by the Virtual cache "Tribute to Courage " ID# 12394
GC3066A many time on trips from Houston to Dallas which even included
stopping about two years ago to walk around the monument for that virtual
plus visit its Visitors Center where I picked up printed material about the
statue and which included the answers for verification. When I was
traveling from Houston to St. Louis via Dallas for a Nov. 2002 Thanksgiving
trip. I looked for caches on the route (I did 10 on this trip) and saw this
one. I put the waypoint in my GPSr route and stopped and had a photo made by
it with my GPSr. Not till then did I claim and log my find.
When I filed the report for my only traditional on Dec. 8, 2002: Christmas
at Plantation Bend (GCB2EA) Erik of Geochaching Admin was rightfully
concerned that the title and listed contents implied that I may only have
this cache available for the Christmas Season. I can understand that
seasonal caches cannot justify your effort, time, and cost to maintain them
on Geocaching.com. However there is another Christmas titled cache in the
same park as mine that was posted in November and was archived at the end of
December as the season is over.
I know this response goes in as much detail as a book but with the last
three reports of my cache sponsorship have been initially objected to with
many of the above issues which I can understand some of the reasons. They
may not have been traditional caches but I felt they had very significant
historical value. Most of the logs to these caches have implied that also.
As a railfan, three of my virtual caches are about railroad historical
sites. Other geochachers who are also railfan were very interested in
being directed to a site that they had not been to that was as much railroad
interest to them as the cache find.
I have another railroad historical site that I had planned to report. But
now I don't know if it is worth the time effort for me to compile the
information, post and them have to respond to all the objections that
Geocaching Admin may have before it is approved.
I thinks the answer to this traditional vs virtual cache situation is:
separate listings of cachers number of finds by the categories of
Traditional, Virtual, and Locationless like is done for Geochaching vs
benchmarking. I can also understand that will require more web page design
and cost but there are a lot of purists in this sport that refuses to log a
virtual. I personally think they are missing out on a lot of interesting
history just because they think virtuals is just a ploy to be used to
inflate the number of finds. I think this numbers game gets to be to
nonsense sometimes. Remember we really are only competing with ourselves
with the number of finds. At the last event with the Houston Area
Geocachers Association one of the members with a large number of finds mention,
I quote "I realized that I had found so many caches and quickly left the park
to get
another find. He said it came to him that he was not taking the time to
smell the roses and enjoy the park. I think getting us out to interesting
parks is as much value as the find also. Just read the logs that says, "I
have been near or even in this park before, but I did not know this area of
the park existed, thanks for bringing me here to enjoy the beauty of this
today." I know geocaching is trying to teach how to use a GPS to find a
location but we should not only "cache in - trash out" but enjoy the beauty
that our GPSr led us to.
Note:
(I did in the end post the other railroad related virtual "Atalanta-Goddess of
Speed" (GCC0AA). It was approved fast with the comment: if all virtuals were
posted this well, they would be approved without any objections. I don't know
if it was that or that I had wore him down in the previous refusal and the
rebuttal process.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Ponder
To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:18 AM
Subject: [GeoStL] Virtual and Locationless Caches
I am not sure why the powers that be are so down on virtual caches--unless
they really feel that a lot of locations for regular caches are being lost
because a virtual has been placed instead. Or is it a quality issue? Virtuals
don't have the "fun" ending of finding the trinkets and logbook, but they
usually sending you to that location for a reason that makes the stop
worthwhile.
And...just when I thought of a locationless cache idea, I see that
locationless caches are suspended! I've never searched for a locationless
cache, but I do hope that they come back online even if they are in a separate
category like the benchmarks.
OK. Here are my official geocaching.com improvement ideas (which I am sure
the gc team will jump on and implement before the sun has set on another cloudy
winter day :^)).
1. When you log a find you have several choices: found it, couldn't find it,
etc. To address the cache quality issue, why not let the cacher who is logging
the find also rate the cache from one star to five stars, which would show up
alongside the other two star ratings? A small line next to it indicating how
many votes upon which the rating was based would also be handy. If a cache
consistently received poor reviews, a cacher who was considering going to it
would know that, based on the experience of others, their time would be better
spent elsewhere.
2. Couldn't gc.com implement a filtering system. If cachers didn't want to be
bothered with virtuals, a system that allowed you to filter out the virtuals
would make the virtual cache decision left to the individual cacher. If you
want to visit them, don't filter them out. If you aren't fond of virtuals,
filter them (or any other style of cache that you don't enjoy) out.
I believe that these two approaches would help the cache approvers. The
burden of magically discerning the quality of the cache wouldn't be so high.
Time would tell if the cache had the quality that it needs to survive.
Enough of that. Everyone have a great Saturday. I'm stuck at work once again.
:^(
The Hairy Hillbilly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Other related posts:
